A Better Link for Fairweather...

[Peter_Puget]

Here is good link you might interesting:

 

The Commons.

 

It's an enviromental site and safe for public viewing.

 

PP

[JoshK]

Hehe...a right wing "environmental" site, now I have seen it all...

[catbirdseat]

Amy Ridenour was so proud of her lawn she used it as an example of how private ownership is good for the environment. She wrote how she obsessively runs her gas guzzling smoke belching mower twice a day. She decribed how she hires a professional service to come out and apply "fertilizer", no doubt weed and feed, full of 2,4-D. Yep, a real environmental steward, she is.

[Greg_W]

Hehe...a right wing "environmental" site, now I have seen it all...

 

At your age, I highly doubt it, but continue in your youthful delusion.

[JoshK]

Hehe...a right wing "environmental" site, now I have seen it all...

 

At your age, I highly doubt it, but continue in your youthful delusion.

 

 

OK, fine, I have seen far from all, but the concept of this being passed as an environmental cause is still pretty laughable.

[JoshK]

I enjoy this particular gem courtest of the "national policy for public policy research"

 

"Excepting the El Nino year of 1998, since about 1979, the Earth's temperature apparently has not been increasing. What minor warming the Earth experienced over the past century primarily occurred before 1940, when there were far fewer motor vehicles and power plants."

 

That's interesting, because anybody, even rightwingers, will tell you that the 90s had something like 5 of the hottest years since 1900 and last summer was the hottest on record. The argument is over if *WE* are causing the warming not if it is warming or not. A pretty bold, flat out lie if you ask me.

[foraker]

Yes yes. Very environmentally friendly. Use of nasty two-stroke lawn mower. Use of pesticides/herbicides/fungicides. Filling up of land fills with grass clippings. Increased run-off which dumps said pesticides, etc into the water supply. Absolutely no living organisms allowed on said lawn except lawn (i.e. immediate destruction of snakes and rodentia which are food sources for raptors, foxes, etc) Yes. I see it now. Fine ecostewards they are.

Don't even get me started on the environmental tragedies called 'golf courses'.

 

How can one complain that government isn't 'doing it's job' when in fact you voted with your taxes that that is not the job you want them to be doing? If he's such a good steward and a fine conservative, he should be out there mowing the median strips himself. That's community action!

[AaronB]

Yes yes. Very environmentally friendly. Use of nasty two-stroke lawn mower. Use of pesticides/herbicides/fungicides. Filling up of land fills with grass clippings. Increased run-off which dumps said pesticides, etc into the water supply. Absolutely no living organisms allowed on said lawn except lawn (i.e. immediate destruction of snakes and rodentia which are food sources for raptors, foxes, etc) Yes. I see it now. Fine ecostewards they are.

Don't even get me started on the environmental tragedies called 'golf courses'.

 

How can one complain that government isn't 'doing it's job' when in fact you voted with your taxes that that is not the job you want them to be doing? If he's such a good steward and a fine conservative, he should be out there mowing the median strips himself. That's community action!

[Peter_Puget]

Amy Ridenour was so proud of her lawn she used it as an example of how private ownership is good for the environment. She wrote how she obsessively runs her gas guzzling smoke belching mower twice a day. She decribed how she hires a professional service to come out and apply "fertilizer", no doubt weed and feed, full of 2,4-D. Yep, a real environmental steward, she is.

 

CBS - Please go back a reread the post you are referring to. You will find that it is not Amy discussing her lawn at all.

[Peter_Puget]

Yes yes. Very environmentally friendly. Use of nasty two-stroke lawn mower. Use of pesticides/herbicides/fungicides. Filling up of land fills with grass clippings. Increased run-off which dumps said pesticides, etc into the water supply. Absolutely no living organisms allowed on said lawn except lawn (i.e. immediate destruction of snakes and rodentia which are food sources for raptors, foxes, etc) Yes. I see it now. Fine ecostewards they are.

Don't even get me started on the environmental tragedies called 'golf courses'.

 

How can one complain that government isn't 'doing it's job' when in fact you voted with your taxes that that is not the job you want them to be doing? If he's such a good steward and a fine conservative, he should be out there mowing the median strips himself. That's community action!

 

wsssshhh.. That was the sound of the "point" of the post wizzing over your head.

[JoshK]

 

wsssshhh.. That was the sound of the "point" of the post wizzing over your head.

 

Please explain the "point" of the post then. You posted a link to an "environmental" site and people went and looked at it. It's ridiculous and people are expressing those views. How is that beside the point?

[Peter_Puget]

Last sentence: Private ownership: pride and attention. Government ownership: the potential for neglect

 

Whether a lawn is "enviromentally" correct or not is not the point.

 

Another way to point this out would be to show differences in how companies such as LP, GP or Simpson treat land they own outright differently than they do land owned by the US government.

[JoshK]

What are LP, GP or Simpson? Logging companies? HAH! Great example. You're right, we might as well just sell them the alpine lakes wilderness since their pride of ownership would certainly make sure that land is well taken care of. Of course they are going to maintain their land for the maximum timber output; it's their business. Does that mean it's good for the environment? Uh...no.

 

Let's look at the example of industry. They own the land they produce on. Do they give a shit about polluting it? No. And they care even less about letting their crap run off into other people's land or public land.

 

Private owndership does not, in any way, mean pride and attention. Give me a break, I think you are smarter than this.

[foraker]

Exactly. If he feels government isn't up to the job he should be *paying* some private company to mow the median strips.

[foraker]

It's like my dad. Moan, whine, complain but never actually do anything.

[cj001f]

Last sentence: Private ownership: pride and attention. Government ownership: the potential for neglect

 

Whether a lawn is "enviromentally" correct or not is not the point.

It's very much the point PP. The lawn is emblematic of most private land ownership - it's managed to maximise a single, or small group, of resources. LP with forest, ranches with cows (or elk), Iceland's private rivers with Salmon, or us with our yards. Show me one private enterprise that's managed it's lands for the benefit of the ecosystem as a whole

[mattp]

I'd modify Josh's arguments slightly. Yes, ownership and investment TEND to increase the likelihood that the resource will be managed with care but they certainly DO NOT guarantee it. And because of how long-term accounting and planning is done, the government-owned resource is very likely to be BETTER managed because the future is so severely discounted in any business accounting routine that I have ever heard of. Yes, Georgia Pacific operates its lands in a way to produce a timber crop 30 years from now, but they do not value planning and preservation of the resource for the next several crop cycles at all if it costs them even a penny to do so -- an expected return on investment, 60 or 80 years from now, even if tremendous, just isn't worth a thing on today's balance sheet.

 

Second, I say Josh is right on about the environmental damage associated with keeping the lawn, Peter, and that YOU missed the point. THe point is that all those costs - all the runoff, trash volume, and mower emissions - are externalized from the homeowner's point of view. A government lawn-mowing agency that shares budgetting and rulemaking duties with the pollution control agencies and garbage utility would be much more likely to take into account these "other" costs or impacts associated with maintaining a green lawn.

[olyclimber]

Corporations can be poorly run, just like the government.

[rbw1966]

Superfund sites are in many cases were owned and abandoned by private owners. Private ownership is good for the environment all right.

[foraker]

And when the government tries to get them to pay to clean it up, they fight it in court....

[Peter_Puget]

I'd modify Josh's arguments slightly. Yes, ownership and investment TEND to increase the likelihood that the resource will be managed with care but they certainly DO NOT guarantee it. And because of how long-term accounting and planning is done, the government-owned resource is very likely to be BETTER managed because the future is so severely discounted in any business accounting routine that I have ever heard of. Yes, Georgia Pacific operates its lands in a way to produce a timber crop 30 years from now, but they do not value planning and preservation of the resource for the next several crop cycles at all if it costs them even a penny to do so -- an expected return on investment, 60 or 80 years from now, even if tremendous, just isn't worth a thing on today's balance sheet.

 

I suspect you are incorrect on this. (The bolded section. Your first section is definately in error when you say: because of how long-term accounting and planning is done, the government-owned resource is very likely to be BETTER managed because the future is so severely discounted in any business accounting routine that I have ever heard of.

 

Second, I say Josh is right on about the environmental damage associated with keeping the lawn, Peter, and that YOU missed the point. THe point is that all those costs - all the runoff, trash volume, and mower emissions - are externalized from the homeowner's point of view. A government lawn-mowing agency that shares budgetting and rulemaking duties with the pollution control agencies and garbage utility would be much more likely to take into account these "other" costs or impacts associated with maintaining a green lawn.

 

You as well as JK miss the point. Your last sentence is a joke - certainly you can't be serious. Try this as a starting point: link Then think about coordinating governmental agencies.

 

In a discussion over US international cooperation under the Bush dministration I asked for clarification as to what you meant by cooperation. You repsonded with a smart alec retort but I was being competely honest pointing out how we both considered the Kyoto treaty an example of cdooperation (Me) and uncooperation (you). Again I think we have a conceptual problem - namely what does good mean. Here is a quote from a Mr. Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D., Professor at Univ of Texas:

 

When a philosopher is asked an evaluative question, such as "Is cloning wrong?" he or she is likely to reply with a question: "What do you mean by 'cloning'?" The philosopher is not being obtuse, coy, or disrespectful. He or she is ensuring that the exchange is productive rather than wasteful.

[cj001f]

And when the government tries to get them to pay to clean it up, they fight it in court....

If they haven't declared bankruptcy.

 

PP-

Name one industry that CARES about a ROI 40 years from now! The timber companies care only about maintaining the same book value of their cutting lands - which is based on lumber extant.

[Peter_Puget]

And when the government tries to get them to pay to clean it up, they fight it in court....

If they haven't declared bankruptcy.

 

PP-

Name one industry that CARES about a ROI 40 years from now! The timber companies care only about maintaining the same book value of their cutting lands - which is based on lumber extant.

 

What do you mean by book value?

[JoshK]

Individuals may well care about keeping care of their lawns. Even if that means ruining ground, water, etc. I am willing to not even argue that point. The point is industry and corporations have no consideration whatsoever for the proper care of the land or the environment. As Matt said, they'll do what is profitable.

 

Until our government steps up and makes companies pay the actual costs of destroying the global commons, things will go down hill.

[mattp]

Peter-

 

I really don't care to run down your link here if you aren't going to bother to make your argument yourself, but you apparently argue that government agencies are inefficient or some such thing.

 

One "conceptual problem" we have here is that you fail to say what your argument is but another is that you don't want to respond to the arguments sent your way. There was no mystery about what I meant by the word "cooperation" the other day, and no nuance to what I meant when I asked you if it was "cooperative" to refuse to comply with the expressed wishes of nearly every single one of (if not all of) our allies. Had you wanted to say, it was uncooperative but cooperation was not justified, or something like that, I might have been interested in continuing the discussion. Where you wanted to talk in circles to avoid the question, I lost interest.

 

Today, among other things we were discussing a simple idea from the source that you brought forth: private management of resources will always be better than public. My own reply, echoing those of others, contained two equally simple ideas: the idea that future expectations are severely discounted in standard business accounting, and the idea that the actual costs or impacts associated with one's economic activity may be external and left completely out of the balance sheet. You dismiss both concepts, without discussing either.

Edited May 18, 2004 by mattp